Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God, The Devil, and Darwin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God, The Devil, and Darwin

Sub-stub, NPOV. Was origianlly created as a bio of Niall Shanks containing nothing but one-sided criticisms. Article renamed to the title of Shanks' book God, The Devil, and Darwin to dodge having to comply WP:BLP, still contains only one-sided, POV criticisms, with no actual direct description of the book. Creator of article has failed to conform article to policies or guidelines. FeloniousMonk 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, notable book, horrible article. — AKADriver ☎ 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is rewritten as an article that's actually about the book and doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete? as an attack page. JoshuaZ 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice; while it appears to be an attack page, at present, I see nothing wrong with an actual article about the book, should someone choose to write on. Guettarda 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. Xyrael ^T 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just two citations about the book, nothing about the book content. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above •Jim62sch• 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete. I don't think the book is especially notable, though it must have done something right to be the subject of such irk. This however is is just an attack page. Get an Amazon account, Ed! — Dunc|☺ 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The page I saw was more of a stub than an attack page Eluchil404 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete possibly suitable subject for an article, but no content here so no case made that I can seeGleng 11:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - can always come back as a full article if someone wants it. Mtpt 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.